Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821296 --- Comment #3 from Adrian Alves <aal...@gmail.com> 2012-05-14 19:03:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > fedora-review -b 821296 --mock-config fedora-16-x86_64 > > [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. > > Issues: > [!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at > least one supported primary architecture. > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Support > [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any > that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the > package failed to build because of missing BR > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 > [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging > for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions > [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros Fixed, check this out: Spec URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/drpython.spec SRPM URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/drpython-3.11.1-1.fc16.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
